A poll by the The Hill has found that a majority of “likely voters” think President Barack Obama has been the same or worse than Bush when it comes to “balancing national security with protecting civil liberties.”

The results from 1,000 “likely voters” showed 37% considered Obama to have been worse. Fifteen percent said he had been “about the same” while 44% said he had been better.

The same poll also asked “voters” about their opinions on Obama’s targeted killing program or his use of drones. Sixty-five percent said they support “the use of unmanned drones to target and kill people in foreign countries whom the US government says are terrorists and present an imminent threat.” Forty-four percent said it should be “legal” for “the US government to kill American citizens whom it believes are terrorists and present an imminent threat.” And 53% said it should be legal for the “US government to kill non-US citizens whom it believes are terrorists and present an imminent threat.”

According to The Hill, “More than one in five self-identified Democrats, 21 percent, assert that the Obama administration has not improved upon Bush’s record. So do 23 percent of liberals.”

First, there is a disconnect among a portion of the “voters” polled, which the Obama administration and news media that have reported details on the administration’s targeted killing program are responsible for creating. The poll shows there are actual voters who support assassinating individuals away from hot battlefields with lethal force when they have not been charged or convicted of a crime and yet also conclude that Obama is worse or the same as Bush. For these few, he is not worse because he is targeting and executing people with drones but because of other issues that cannot be determined from the poll results. This is partly striking because the use of targeted killings is a key issue that has led people to conclude he is worse than Bush.

In any case, if voters and/or Democrats/liberals perceive Obama to be worse than Bush, it is partly because he does not talk about or refuses to address these issues.

It was October 8, 2012, when Obama said while running for re-election, “We haven’t talked about what’s at stake with respect to civil liberties.” He seemed to suggest this was GOP candidate Mitt Romney’s fault. But the reality is that neither he nor his campaign wanted to discuss any of the many civil liberties issues of which he had taken stands in 2008 before he was elected. The reason was that his record was one where it appeared he had not been better or any different than President Bush.

During tonight’s State of the Union, there will likely be little mention of any civil liberties issues. Same-sex rights, women being able to fight on the front lines of combat and a path to citizenship for immigrants might be mentioned, however, there is unlikely to be any questioning or introspective reflection on the chief cause of the loss of civil liberties: the global war on terrorism.

As president, Obama has further codified and institutionalized policies that Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney probably never thought would be maintained by Obama.

Guantanamo Bay prison is still open and he is now noncommittal when it comes to shutting the facility down. Military tribunals, not federal courts, are being used to try terror suspects held at Guantanamo. The PATRIOT Act was re-authorized under his watch. The FISA Amendments Act, which allows for warrantless surveillance, has been renewed. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) increased security and used body scanners. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) continue to assert the right to conduct suspicionless searches of individuals at the border and believe they can seize anyone’s devices arbitrarily.

The “No Fly” list continues to grow and those listed have no way to challenge being put on the list. Restrictions on communications between prisoners and their attorneys have been maintained by the Justice Department. A record number of immigrants continue to be deported each year. Inhumane immigration detention facilities have flourished. The administration has defended a provision of a 2012 NDAA bill in court that gives the military the power to indefinitely detain Americans suspected of “substantially supporting” terrorism. And the administration has protected state secrecy and waged a war on “leakers” or whistleblowers that the Bush administration never could have gotten away with carrying out when they were in power. [For more, see this report from the ACLU on civil liberties issues Obama should address in his second term.]

Much of these policies are permanent fixtures in national security policy. Americans have either willfully accepted this is what the government will do to keep the country “safe” or they have learned to cope with living in a society where their civil liberties will be violated.

The few that have challenged the policies have challenged them because they themselves have become victims of the policies or because they recognize the problem of giving government the power to take away civil liberties just to wage war.

The permanence of the war on terrorism has been made possible by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which Bush signed three days after the September 11th attacks.

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The AUMF has been used as justification for countless acts of executive power. It is the prime justification for the claimed authority to target and assassinate individuals abroad. And the national security state seems intent to use it in perpetuity because it has become conventional wisdom in Washington that it permits any operation.

But, as MSNBC host Chris Hayes said last week when discussing Obama’s targeted killing program, “How long are we in the war on terror and is this legal architecture going to guide American foreign policy in perpetuity?” Somewhere in the world, he added, there will always be someone “plotting to do something terrible to the United States.” Though it has become the “new normal,” it does not have to be. Nations like England and Spain, both attacked by al Qaeda, are not in “permanent” states of war.

Who in al Qaeda or these affiliate groups fighting America actually had any connection to the attacks on 9/11? Or, who among al Qaeda or these affiliate groups now fight America because America is still fighting them—in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, etc? Who is al Qaeda and who are simply rebels or militants fighting their own government who may also be outraged that US forces are meddling in their country?

As long as the War on Terrorism is being fought with its current policies in tact, Americans can count on presidents who differ little from their predecessor on civil liberties. They will never defend due process, free speech, press freedom, privacy or rights to liberty and justice and risk constraining the ability of government to fight enemies abroad. Each president will be the same or worse than the previous president. They may be able to end policies that have become exposed and indefensible (i.e. the torture program), but, ultimately, whether they personally support the policies or not, this is how the national security state conducts business and no president will ever let their commitment to change disrupt business as usual.

18 Responses
to “The Perpetual War on Terrorism Ensures Presidents Will Be Increasingly Worse on Civil Liberties”

Obama’s a f–king amateur and pawn of the MIC, Wall Street, and the burgeoning intel/security apparatus. And I’m tired of being polite about it and trying to parse arguments that dignify policies of a totalitarian state that deserve no decent quarter.

Corporate fascists continue to tighten their grip on this republic. The erosion of civil liberties and the bill of rights under the color of law, in the name of protection. Protection of very profitable monopolistic energy business models, MIC and Wall Street, which have gutted the republic and shredded checks and balances designed to curb abuses of power by corporations and government. Nice to see what money buys. It ain’t love either…..

The Network, created during the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan and enabled by America has been decimated. Now the perpetual war on terror is utilized as was the red scare, to distract attention from pressing issues which if addressed might actually benefit the republic, opposed to monied corporate fascists protecting at great cost to society extractive business models which seem to pick gold fillings from teeth causing considerable pain and discomfort with mutual benefit gone,,,,,

I think this poll’s phrasing of the question makes it hard to tell what the respondents are thinking.

It asked whether the balance between security and liberty has gotten better or worse under Obama, but I imagine there are plenty of civil libertarians who would say things are worse, yet mean something very different from a birther type who replies identically but means that Obama is a secret foreign-born Muslim who has been too easy on his terrorist friends.

So the poll may be a snapshot of how respondents feel about how Obama has done, but doesn’t say much about what they want him to do.

This is aside from the de rigueur false choice between security and freedom that the poll takes as a given, placing outside the realm of public opinion the fact that so much of what the U.S. does in the name of security has the opposite effect both at home and abroad.

The “war on terror” is a much bigger threat to us than the threat posed by the USSR during the Cold War–not because the terrorists can come even remotely close to the military power of the Soviets, but because of how they empower US politicians at the expense of the American people. The enemy within is always the most dangerous.

P.S. What really empowers the politicians is the stupidity and cowardice of the majority of American people. The terrorists just provide the excuse to exploit that fear and stupidity.

In the immortal words of Springfield’s Mayor Quimby, Americans are “nothing but a pack of fickle mush-heads”. We don’t know what we think or how we feel about anything–just continue to entertain us with football and American Idol and bad chain restaurants, please, and we’ll promise to be good.

The bogus “War on Terror” is actually a War OF Terror, increasing those determined to avenge the murder of family and friends. It is an ingenious solution to the “problem” posed to the war profiteers and their legally-bribed servants in Congress and the White House by the collapse of the USSR. Not only is this “war” endless, but its “battlefield” is anywhere and any time, and it constantly regenerates “terrorists” in vengeful reaction to the State Terrorism used by the U.S. Obomber is now expanding it to all of Africa and the Far East. This is a never-ending goldmine for war profiteers and their political parasites! And Obomber, far from being an amateur, knows EXACTLY what he is doing for war profiteers and Wall Street.

I find the total distortion of the facts that occurs frequently here to be totally offensive as a liberal. It is shocking to me.

The permanence of the war on terrorism has been made possible by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which Bush signed three days after the September 11th attacks.

What is repeated over and over is the mythology of the US as monarchy or dictatorship and not as a democracy.

Public Law 107-40 aka Authorization for Use of Military Force was passed by Congress on September 14, 2001 by 518 votes. with 1 vote against.

President Bush signed it as a formality because a veto as unlikely as that is would have been easily overridden, if he had rejected it because it didn’t suspend habeas corpus, for example. Of course, given the lack of opposition to the expansive law, perhaps we can see Bush was not seeking unlimited executive power because a suspension of habeas might have passed Congress if he asked – the passage would have still been possible with 200 Democrats voting against whatever law was put forward.

Now the answer to the questions asked are very simple:

Will Barbara Lee’s H.R.198 – Repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force pass Congress??

Or is asking about Congress passing laws off limits because progressives want to make believe Obama is dictator just like their myth Bush was dictator.

Great post as usual. Unfortunately no one cares about “icky” freedoms and what not. Remember, the Peace Prize winner is giving his state of the “Union perpetually at war with the rest of the world” speech tonight, and the most important element is murder, death and destruction – and now women can do it too! Yippee!

As for this:

Forty-four percent said it should be “legal” for “the US government to kill American citizens whom it believes are terrorists and present an imminent threat.” And 53% said it should be legal for the “US government to kill non-US citizens whom it believes are terrorists and present an imminent threat.”

There are no words. This view is worse than Nazi Germany, with its People’s Court, or Stalin’s NKVD Troika. This saddens me beyond belief.

There’s plenty of blame to go around for the militaristic nation we have become. Fact is, there are hundreds of pathetic Congresscritters who can hide behind their strength in numbers.

There is only one person with the power to make decisions for the executive branch. And we know how hard he works for peace as opposed to the predominantly pathetic (there’s that word again) excuses he finds for hewing the MIC line to “keep Americans safe”)

The law is the law, and the president is sworn to uphold the Constitution which includes explicitly all the laws passed by Congress. PL 107-40 explicitly states the president will identify the groups or person Congress has declared war on.

To argue that the president can chose which laws to execute and which to ignore is to argue for rule by man, not rule of law.

If you do not like the law, then change the law. If 60% of We the People support the law, then you have a tough road ahead of you in convincing millions of We the People to change their view of the law.

It was the theory that the president doesn’t need to follow the laws of Congress that led to Bush authorizing or ignoring US law on torture.

Again, a deflection of responsibility. No it is not We the People who are too blame, not my neighbor, not me for voting Republican or Democrat, but those stupid people in Congress who must have got their because Chinese hackers put them there.

The “endless global war on individuals who scare us” is the war We the People wanted in revenge for 911 and overwhelmingly continue to support as long as we do not have go die in the war.

We the People wanted and support this war – it is not imposed on We the People by some alien power.

The law is the law, and the president is sworn to uphold the Constitution which includes explicitly all the laws passed by Congress. PL 107-40 explicitly states the president will identify the groups or person Congress has declared war on.

Yes, vs the law isn’t the law. Brilliant. Now, just so I understand your point, please point to that LAW which authorized the murder of 16-year-old American citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. Please? Purty please? And while your at it, please support your point by entering into evidence, those facts that support what ever this alleged law defines as what this vaporized boy had allegedly perpetrated. Purty please?

Oh, my bad. Now I remember. The prosecution entered their evidence during his trial. Right. Nevermind. Yessireeebob..the law is the law…and the Constitution is the Constitution..the one our ole Prez swore to uphold. Now I understand.